Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1887-11-18
Overpowered by Secretary Lamar
While Protecting the Amer
lean Peoples Heritage.
He Accuses the Secretary of the In
terror of Substituting Force
For Argument" Etc.
An Attempt to Divert the Public
Mind From the Real Merits
Of the Case" Alleged.
All About the Omaha Case.

Z D. g. 20
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15.-Land Commits
sioner Sparks this afternoon personally de-
livered to the president the following let
ter defending his course in the Chicago,
st. Paul. Minneapolis & Omaha railway
land grant case and formally resigned his
office: H. .F
=, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEN
ERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. c.,
Nov. 15, 1887. TO THE PREsIDENT: The
honorable secretary of the interior advises
me by a letter dated the 18th inst in effect
that he should on that date present to you
the alternative of selecting a new secre-
tary of the interior or new commissioner
thOrity vested in the commissioner by law
and in accordance with the relations and
practically pursuant to the law by which
action is first taken in the general land Of
fee IN all matters relating to public lands,
had previous to September, 1887, made
adjustments of certain railroad land grants,
two Of which are known as the Omaha
cases. I had been specially directed by the
secretary to report on October Z, 1887. The
two decisions of the secretary were rem
dered in the Omaha cases, nOn-cOncurring
in my adjustments and Overruling the au
thority on which they were based. He -di-
rected at the same time to cause the grants
to be adjusted in conformity with said de-
cisions. now infer from his published
letter that these decisions were not ap-
proved by the official law advi ser for the
department. of the interior. The point
at issue related to the claim Of railroad
companies to indemnity for lands that un-
the operation Of these acts. By the ex
press terms of the statutes previous to
1875, lands that had been reserved by the
government for the Indians and other pur-
poses, and which were excluded from the
grants and from the operation of the grant
ing acts, had been patented or certified to
the companies, both as granted lands and
as indemnity, prOmiscuously with other
lands. This seems to have been done in
pursuance of the practice of giving railroad
companies whatever they asked for, ap-
parently without tmuch consideration OF the
restrictions and limitations OF the grant
In that year the title to large quantity of
such lands in the state of Kansas which
had been so enormously converted to the
Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston rail
road company was decided invalid by the
United States supreme court. Since that
date. or for the past twelve years. the lands
! that were reserved at the grant or at the
+ the case may be have been regarded and
treated in the decisions Of the department
as excluded not only from all the grants,
but from the indemnity basis under all
grants wherein such reserved lands are Dy
the terms of the law excluded from the
in the Omaha cases that the company was
entitled to indemnify for such lands. This
decision, if adhered to, will have the effect
take from the people many million acres
of land within the railroad indemnity
limits: which by your advice and with your
approval, as expressed in the Guilford Mil
Ter case, have been proclaimed to the coun-
try as restored to the public domain. The
question of the correctness of these decis-
ions become therefore q matter Of import
ance. II they correctly declared the law,
these lands belong to the railroad compa-
nies. If they did not correctly declare the
law, the lands, belong the people. The
Omaha decisions purpOrt to be founded
upon the decision Of the supreme court in
the case of the Winona & st. Peter railroad
company vs.. Barney Glib u. 5. 6!8), the
insertion being made that the "plain Ian
guageD of the court in that case seems
to be q conclusive answer of the questions
tain rule Of statutory Interpretation,
relied upon as being an axiom of cOnstruc-
ton. Said decisions were further referred
by reference 10 an unreported decision OF
the United States circuit court for Wis
c0nsin, which was said in the Omaha cases
to be . judicial construction which seems
to leave ssno further room for discussion"
It appeared to me that the decision OF the
supreme court in the Barney case was abb
soiutely silent upon the question decided
in the Omaha cases and that not even the
Obiter of the court sustained these deciS-
ions. 1t also appeared to me that the ques-
tiOn at issue was not in the case decided
by the circuit court for Wisconsin and it
seemed that the rule of statutory interpre-
tatiOn adopted in the Omaha cases was the
opposite OF the ruleOf construction adopted
by the courts and laid down by law
writer's. I was therefore profoundly con-
vinced that the secretary had been COM
mitted to errors of law which il brought
fully TO his personal attention might be
corrected. tits the practice OF the depart.
ment to permit representatives Of railroad
companies and other private interests to
apply for reviews and recOnsiderations OF
decisions when questions are decided
against such interests. believed, as the
officer of the government having immediate
guardianship OF the public lands and i'm
mediate charge of the issuance OF patents